The answer was given by Muhammad himself: against all non-Muslims. And since then nothing changed; Islamic immigration is aimed against all non-Muslims in the host countries, with the final goal of converting them into countries ruled by Islam.

Muhammad planned his immigration like a military campaign, carefully eliminating any chance of error. And he had good reasons; his situation in Mecca became perilous. Of course, the wealth he inherited after his wife Khadija’s death was with him, and this wealth was enormous; the monthly business turnover of Khadija’s business was equivalent to a whole year’s balance for the entire tribe of Quraish. But after Khadija and his uncle Abu Talib died in 620, Muhammad lost the political protection and became very vulnerable for the attacks of his enemies. Those enemies were practically all the Quraish tribe whom he deeply insulted by the continuous and fierce attacks of their gods. The situation was aggravated by the fact that all the tribal leaders of the near-by towns Muhammad tried to approach seeking refuge and protection from Quraish turned him down.

Finally, he decided to run to an oasis town, Ta’if, situated some 40 miles from Mecca. Together with his adopted son he arrived to Ta’if, but evidently, “the local muscle” he boughtwas not strong enough, and the citizens of the town chased him out in a very “undemocratic” manner; Muhammad was hounded and beaten. Besides, they informed Quraish about Muhammad’s attempt. By the time he reached Mecca, the news had preceded him, and he did not dare enter Mecca for fear of his life. Instead, he contacted one of the members of the board of elders of Mecca, Mutaeam bin Adi, asking him for help. And he got it!

Why a pagan Mutaeam bin Adi all of a sudden decided to give his protection to the Muslim Muhammad who was hated by all the Quraish could be a theme for a separate investigation, but the sources carefully mention that there were benefits on both sides. Putting it simple, Muhammad bought protection of the local Quraish leader- and that let him stay in Mecca for some more time. But Muhammad understood that this time was quickly running out and that the second failure could be the last one.

In 620 CE, six men of the Yathrib Arab pagan tribe Aws arrived to Mecca to seek an alliance against another Arab tribe of Yathrib: Khazraj. Muhammad did a wonderful job of convincing them against this alliance and making them his allies instead (for more details, see “Muhammad, The First Muslim Immigrant, Part 2: Buying Off The Local Muscle.”) The enemy was very clearly defined: those who had to be attacked and destroyed were Jews, Christians and the people of his own tribe Quraish. The idea was received with enthusiasm. Yathrib was founded by Jews, and at that time was a Jewish city. There were three very rich and powerful Jewish tribes there. Another part of the citizens of Yathrib was formed by pagan Arabs of two bitterly rivalling tribes, Aws and Khazraj. Arabs dreamed about snatching the rule from the Jews, but they did not have either money or enough military strength to throw an open challenge to them. Besides, Aws and Khazraj were constantly fighting each other, and Jews skilfully supported this or that side depending on the current situation.

Muhammad offered to both Aws and Khazraj something they could only dream about.

In 621, already 12 local Arab leaders from Yathrib: six from Aws and six from Khazraj, arrived to Mecca and made the first pledge of loyalty to Muhammad. This is known as the “First Pledge of Aqaba.”

In 622, Mecca saw already 75 tribal leaders of both Aws and Khazraj coming to have a talk with Muhammad. They made a “Second Pledge of Aqaba”, and it was decided that Muhammad and his followers would be welcomed to Medina. From the beginning it was clear to all that the pledge was an Alliance of War. When Muhammad’s uncle Abbas bin Abdel Muttalib asked Aws and Khazraj leaders if they knew and understood what they were supporting and what they pledged their alliance for, they all answered affirmatively, confirming they knew they pledged the alliance to fight against all mankind. I am not exaggerating, the answer was exactly this: AGAINST ALL MANKIND.

Ishaq:204/TabariVI:134 Abbas the uncle of the Prophet said: ’Men of the Khazraj, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’

‘Yes,’ they answered. ‘In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging ourselves to wage war against all mankind.’

The first target of course were the “red” and “black”, nicknames used for Jews and unbelievers of Mecca, i.e. Quraish and all other pagan Arab tribes. But one of the Aws leaders, Abu Haitham, wishing to make the situation absolutely clear, asked Muhammad a question:

Oh Apostle of Allah, between us and Jews are ropes (meaning links, ties) and we are about to cut those and if we do that, then we might have disobeyed being in breach of our own agreement with them and so Allah may show you to come back to your people?

Arab leaders of Yathrib understood that they were going to cut the links with Jews, and they also understood that if something went wrong, Muhammad could find attractive the idea of returning back to Mecca, leaving to them the broken relationships both with Jews and with Quraish for having given Muhammad a refuge in their city.

Muhammad calmed Yathrib leaders with a very short and clear answer:

“Blood, blood and destruction, destruction!”

After that, the Yathrib Arab leaders lost any doubts about the true fate Muhammad prepared for Jews and Quraish: they were going to be annihilated.

The very point on which the alliance was made was the war against all enemies of Allah (and of Muhammad of course), until their total extermination or submission.

Tabari VI:133 “We pledge our allegiance to you and we shall defend you as we would our womenfolk. Administer the oath of allegiance to us, Messenger of Allah, for we are men of war possessing weapons and coats of armour.”

Ishaq:208 “When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqabah contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound ourselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances.”

Tabari VI:138“Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad. It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had ordered fighting.”

Muslim migration was ultimately a conquest. Its goal was to establish an Islamic State ruled by Shari’a laws, and all non-Muslims had to be either subdued or annihilated.

Muslim immigrants individually can be – and many of them are- very good people, polite, hospitable and nice. But Muslim immigration is a death threat to the native population of any country that was stupid (if you wish, you can use the term “politically correct”) enough to accept it.

First there is the general justification for sex jihad -- namely that because Muslim men waging jihad have become sexually frustrated in their camps, losing morale and quitting the theatre of war, it is permissible, indeed laudable, for Muslim women to volunteer to give up their bodies to these men so that they can continue the jihad to empower Islam, in accordance with the Koran: "Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain" (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111).

While this verse has traditionally been understood as Muslim men selling "their persons" -- that is, their bodies -- in the jihad in exchange for paradise, in the context of sex jihad, Muslim women are also selling "their persons" (their bodies to be used for sex) to help empower the jihad, in exchange for paradise.

Aside from this logic, which involves intention (niyya) and the idea that the ends justify the means -- this is the same rationale, for example, used to justify Islamic suicide attacks ("martyrdom operations") -- in the hadith and teachings of early Islam, precedents exist that Islam's ulema use to justify the sex jihad.

Recorded in Sahih Bukhari -- for most Sunni Muslims, the second textual authority after the Koran itself -- is an anecdote of one Muslim giving another Muslim one of his wives for sexual purposes. The story is as follows: When some of Muhammad's followers from Mecca migrated to Medina, a complaint was raised that the people of Medina had better profited from following Muhammad than his original Meccan followers, who had suffered more deprivations. In this context, Muhammad paired up the Meccan Abdul Rahman bin Awf with Sa'ad bin Rabi'a of Medina, for the latter to share some of his possessions with the former. So Rabi'a offered to Rahman half of all his possessions, adding, "Look at my two wives, and whichever of them you desire, I will divorce her so you can have her" (Sahih Bukhari: 118, 1943).

Based on this, divorcing one's wife for the use of another Muslim became acceptable -- indeed, laudable and generous behavior. Indeed, Sahih Bukhari has an entire chapter (bab) on the jurisprudence of this practice. Nor should it be forgotten that, recorded in the Koran itself, one man divorced his wife and gave her to Muhammad simply because the prophet desired her.

In several of the videos that interview people involved with the Syrian sex jihad, this very same logic plays out. In this video, for instance, one Muslim man explains how he was told that, since he had three wives, he should divorce one of them so she can wage sex jihad with the "freedom fighters" in Syria. This, both he and his wives were told, was laudable, and so they complied.

Then there is the whole idea of mut'a marriage. Often translated as "temporary" marriage, the word mut'a simply means "pleasure" -- i.e., a marriage for the sole purpose of "pleasure." These "marriage" contracts are made between a Muslim man and woman for a temporary duration and often for the sole purpose of legitimizing otherwise banned sexual relations -- basically a legalized form of prostitution.

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess [sex slaves]. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So whatever you enjoy of them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

In light of all this, it is amazing that some in the West are still trying to exonerate the jihadis in Syria from the practice of sex jihad, since, apparently, those "noble freedom fighters" would never stoop to such a level (the rampant beheadings, church bombings, and Christian persecution is all a "myth," too, according to Der Spiegel).

Finally, below is a 15-minute video of several people -- men and women from various nations -- discussing their experiences with the sex jihad in Syria, translated from Arabic to English by some of my colleagues (you may need to click on "CC" [closed caption"] for the English subtitles to appear).

“Our women are precious to us.” That is the typical Muslim response when asked about the treatment of women in Islam. Women are covered from head-to-toe because they are so “precious,” and in the West, domestic abuse is higher in the Muslim enclaves than in the neighborhoods of the natives because women in Islam are “valued so highly.” Female genital mutilation is apparently another way to demonstrate how women are treated like queens by their Muslim families, and getting flogged or even beheaded for getting raped also proves how special women are in the “religion of peace.”

Honor killings are another wonderful example of the treatment of women in Islam. Recently in Pakistan, a man and his two accomplices killed his sister for allegedly having “illicit relations” with a neighbor. In another Pakistani case, a woman, her aunt and cousin were all killed in an honor killing because the woman left her husband to marry another man. The other two women helped her, and the jirga, assembly of tribal elders, decided that they must be killed. No, it wasn’t madness or a crime of passion but an official decision made by what is essentially the governing group there because women are “precious” in Islam.

In August, a woman, her daughter and son-in-law were also victims of an honor killing by the woman’s brother after the woman had married without her family’s consent. Her brother killed her for it. These honor killings are all too common in Pakistan with new cases reported every few days. Earlier this year, two teenage girls and their mother were killed because the girls had been filmed dancing in the rain, and the video made the rounds via mobile phones. According to the Express Tribune, “the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says 943 women and girls were murdered in 2011 after being accused of tarnishing their families’ honor.” Pakistanis make up the largest Muslim immigrant group in the UK, though honor killings take place across the Muslim world.

Underage marriage is all too common in the Muslim world, and a new report shows that instead of progressing, Malaysia is getting worse with more underage marriages in 2012 than in 2011. While non-Muslims in the nation must wait until the age of 18 to marry, the legal age for Muslims is 16. But with the common belief that girls must be married once they reach puberty, underage children can marry if they get consent from the Shariah court. And that is what they do to get around the supposed legal age the country has “officially” adopted in order to comply with world expectations.

Forced marriage in the British Muslim community is also out-of-control, with at least 8000 per year in England alone. In many of these cases, young girls, barely teenagers, are forced to marry men at least twice their age, which is a dream compared to those who must marry men three or four times older. Refusal to marry these men can result in an honor attack.

A heroin-dealing Muslim in the UK became so infuriated with his wife for wanting an education, he subjected her to a year of “hell,” telling her that married women don’t do this, apparently equating it to some sort of lewd behavior. He forced her to wear a niqab, a face veil, but this was not enough. After she didn’t smile while with the family for Eid, he beat her. His subsequent beatings included ripping her tongue, kicking and punching her, giving her black eyes, keeping tabs on her via her cell phone, accusing her of cheating, etc. The abuse continued even after she got pregnant, and their baby was delivered prematurely. Eventually he stabbed her with scissors and hit her with a dumbbell. The assailant was a “devout Muslim.”

This is not an isolated case. Stories like this one are all too common in the Muslim world and are not contained only in Muslim countries. This case took place in the UK, but it could have been in France, Sweden, Australia, the United States or in any Muslim community around the world.

Saudi Sheikh Salah al-Luhaydan has another suggestion for the “precious jewels” that are Muslim women: do not drive. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive, but this sheikh explains the reasoning behind it. Believe it or not, driving “damages a woman’s ovaries and pelvis.” It is actually a “health risk.” That’s right, a health risk. Why getting in the passenger seat is less of a “health risk” must be some kind of a miracle. Driving is so unhealthy for women, according to the skeikh, it could even affect her unborn babies. In fact, if Saudi Arabia were to allow it, more women and men would turn to homosexuality and pornography. These comments were based on a “scientific” study done by Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council alongside a former professor at King Fahd University. The study also “found” that allowing women to drive could result in prostitution and divorce.

4.11. Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females.4.34. Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart; and scourge (beat) them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

Warraq explains that in Islam, a man is allowed to beat his wife if she refuses to make herself beautiful for him; refuses to meet his sexual demands; leaves the house without permission or without any legitimate reason recognized by law; or neglects her religious duties.Having to walk around like a blob, covered head-to-toe; getting their clitoris carved out and getting sewn almost completely shut; being denied an education or the right to work in a “gender mixing” job; verbal, physical and sexual abuse; running the risk of getting killed for any number of horrific “crimes” such as looking at a boy, talking to men on the street if they aren’t relatives, wearing Western clothing, not wearing a hijab, having a boyfriend, refusing to marry a stranger, getting raped… If this is what “precious” means, I’m glad I’m not so precious.

Under most presidential administrations Elibiary would have been warned to keep his mouth shut and probably would have been removed from his influential position in the DHS. However, the Obama administration has repeatedly demonstrated that they will cater to the radical Muslim Brotherhood ahead of most American conservative and Christian groups so Elibiary has been allowed to spout out his Islamic ideology and is now warning Americans about their attitudes towards Muslims.

Keep in mind as you continue to read below just what this man’s job is. According to official Homeland Security website, the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s mission is:

“The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to homeland security. The Council comprises leaders from state and local government, first responder communities, the private sector, and academia.”

In other words, Elibiary has a key role in determining the security and safety of America and when you read what this man is saying, that should cause you to be very alarmed.

Elibiary is a strong supporter of the Islamic martyr Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in 1966 for trying to over throw the Egyptian government. Before his death, Qutb called all Muslims to unite and form a global Islamic state. He stated:

“There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam), and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shariah is the authority and God’s limits are observed.”

Qutb, who defined the non-Muslim world as the ‘house of war’ (Dar-ul-Harb) wrote:

“A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar-ul-Harb: peace with a contractual agreement, or war.”

“A country with which there is a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam.”

Referring to the writings of Qutb, Elibiary wrote:

“The potential for a strong spiritual rebirth that’s truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more.”

The rebirth he refers to is the rebirth of Islam and the God he refers to is Allah, not our God.

Elibiary’s photo on Twitter has a yellow box in the corner with a black hand holding up four fingers. The Muslim Brotherhood adopted this logo to symbolize the supposed martyrdom of the pro-Morsi demonstrators killed in Cairo on August 14. What makes this significant is that not only does it publically show his support for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood; it goes against the standards of conduct that most federal employees are held to. People holding public office are supposed to conduct themselves in a manner respectful of their position, but no one in the federal government is doing or saying anything about Elibiary’s outward support for an extremist organization.

According to PJ Media, about a year after Elibiary’s appointment to the DHS Security Advisory Council, he downloaded files from the Texas Department of Public Safety and tried to sell them to a variety of liberal media outlets in an effort to defame Gov. Rick Perry and make him into an islamophobe. Fortunately, even the left wing media shied away from Elibiary’s anti-Perry crusade.

Five congressmen including Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questioned the logic or ethics of Elibiary’s appointment to his DHS position. Their concerns were based upon his open support of the Muslim Brotherhood, which some members of Congress and others consider to be an extremist organization with terrorist ties. Their concerns were swept to the side and labeled as being McCarthyistic in nature.

Just last month Elibiary went on Twitter to defend Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood while at the same time claiming that all of the problems and violence was caused by the Christian minority. He failed to mention that Morsi had given all non-Muslims in Egypt three options: convert to Islam, pay a huge tax or leave the country. Morsi’s military and police were systematically attacking Egypt’s Christians, beating them, raping the women, looting their possessions and burning their homes and churches, and yet Elibiary blames them for the violence.

In his latest social media racist tirade, Elibiary went on Twitter with the following message:

“If #TeaParty wants US revived then we must swing Blue seats Red & that is only achievable thru Libertarianism, not Christianist Xenophobia.”

Also on Twitter, he calls some people ‘white identity/privilege types’ who have a problem with a ‘black president’ and ‘brown Mexicans.’ WND contacted Elibiary via email and asked him to clarify his comments and he responded saying:

“’Christianist’ is a term coined about a decade ago and like ‘Islamist’ (for Muslims) and ‘Zionist’ (for Jews) refers to Christians who mix theology and nationalism.”

“Xenophobia is easier for you to understand on your own, but it generally manifests itself in anti-immigrant policies of which Islamophobia today inside the U.S. is just one sub-component for some White Identity/Privilege types that have a problem with a black president, brown Mexicans and so on and so forth.”

“WND certainly would often times fall in this camp as well as perhaps a subset of Christianists that political scientists refer to as ‘Christian Zionists’ because of its foreign policy worldview through a dispensationalist end-time theology.”

Not only do I find Elibiary’s comments to be alarming and anti-American, but so does Michael Meunier, President of the Al-Haya Party in Egypt. He responded to Elibiary’s tweets by saying:

“I think the Obama administration should be ashamed to have had someone like this in their administration. This underscores the thinking inside the Obama administration.”

While I agree with him that Elibiary should not be part of the government administration, I have to disagree with his reasoning. I truly believe that Elibiary shares the exact same views on the Muslim Brotherhood that Barack Obama does. Through all of the Egyptian violence and turmoil, Obama has remained steadfastly supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood while at the same time has said and done nothing concerning the genocide of Egypt’s Christians at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now realize that this Muslim who follows radical Islamists who proclaim the need to create a worldwide Islamic state is advising the federal government on the safety and security of American soil and citizens. How can anyone trust such a person? His own words tell us that he hates America’s Christian foundation and the conservative Christians trying so desperately to preserve our nation. He has no place in our government. In all honesty, based upon his affiliations and his own words, he needs to be placed on the terrorist watch list instead of a Washington office building.

Mohamed Elibiary poses a clear and present danger to the American people and our nation.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.Jefferson Had Quran To Know His Enemies

A Special Forces veteran and commentator says new Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (Hakim-Mohammad) of Minnesota was absolutely right when he said Thomas Jefferson gleaned knowledge from the Quran – only it was knowledge about his enemies that Jefferson likely gleaned.

A report in the FreePress reported Ellison said the fact that Jefferson owned the book confirmed that it was “definitely an important historical document in our national history” and he said it “demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Quran, but read it.”

“It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking,” Ellison was quoted as saying.

In an interview with USINFO, Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert went further, saying the choice of Jefferson’s Quran was significant because it “dates religious tolerance back to the time of our founding fathers.”

“Jefferson was … one of the more profound thinkers of the time, who recognized even then that there was nothing to fear, and in fact there was strength in recognizing religious tolerance,” he said.

Ted Sampley, the publisher of U.S. Veteran Dispatch, agreed with Ellison, who used the Library of Congress Quran that Jefferson once owned for his ceremonial swearing-in to Congress, that Jefferson used the Quran for his own thinking, but not with the same result.

“There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be ‘gleaned’ from the Muslim Quran,” Sampley writes. “At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic ‘Barbary’ states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.”

He noted that over 10 centuries, Muslim pirates had cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and abducting slaves, mostly by making pre-dawn raids that left high casualty rates.

“It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the ‘non-Muslim’ older men and women as possible so the preferred ‘booty’ of only young women could be collected,” he said. The women were sought for their value as concubines in Islamic markets.

“Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East,” Sampley wrote.

When American colonists rebelled against the English in 1776, merchant ships from what later would be the United States lost British navy protection, and they were attacked “and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the ‘Dey of Algiers’ – an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.”

The Continental Congress then met in 1784 to talk about treaties with leaders of the region, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were appointed to oversee the work.

“Tribute” and “ransoms” first were paid to the Muslim slavers, and Adams argued that was the cheapest way to get commerce moving, Sampley wrote. But Jefferson was opposed, proposing a settlement of the issue “through the medium of war.”

Sampley writes that two years later, when Jefferson was ambassador to France, and Adams was ambassador to Britain, they met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the “Dey of Algiers.”

Seeking a peace treaty, based on Congress’ vote to pay tribute, the two Americans asked Dey’s ambassador why Muslims had so much hostility towards America. They later reported to Congress the ambassador told them Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sampley notes that for years the American government paid Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages, but not long after Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, he dispatched the USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid to the Mediterranean.

Jefferson’s first presidency coincided with what generally is called the Barbary Wars running from approximately 1801-1805. That year the Marines marched from Egypt into Tripolitania, freeing Americans held there as slaves, he wrote.

Gary DeMar, president of AmericanVision.org, added his endorsement of Sampley’s interpretation of history.

DeMar cites Joseph Wheelan’s book, “Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror,” in noting Jefferson said, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”

DeMar notes that research treatise concludes that, “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”

“Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target,” DeMar noted. “‘Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim – openly hostile toward Christians.’”

“So what did Jefferson learn from the Quran? …Unless a nation submitted to Islam, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. It’s no wonder that Jefferson studied the Quran. He realized that if Americans ever capitulated, the Muslims would be singing ‘From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of A-mer-i-ca,’” DeMar concluded.

As WND has reported Ellison has allowed his supporters to shout, “Allahu Akbar!,” the same phrase allegedly used by the 9/11 suicide pilots, he’s spoken to various Islamic groups, he’s used that Quran to be sworn into office, but he hasn’t responded to WND requests to confirm he will base his decisions on the laws of the U.S. on the Constitution, not the Quran.

He has confirmed that “in terms of political agenda items, my faith informs these things.”

Jauert confirmed to WND that the congressman does not believe there will be a conflict between his religious beliefs and his duty under the U.S. Constitution.

But when asked which would take priority if there is a conflict, or to describe how the congressman will resolve the differing philosophies provided by the U.S. Constitution and the Quran, which calls for beheading “infidels,” he said he could not answer immediately.

“During the victory celebration for the nation’s first Muslim congressman (not that there’s anything wrong with that… in principle), Congressman Keith Ellison’s supporters scream ‘Allahu Akbar!’, the same phrase that the 9/11 hijackers screamed, the same phrase suicide bombers scream, the same phrase head choppers scream before slicing off the heads of hapless and bound victims. May God protect this country,” the blogger wrote.

WND also has reported Ellison has been linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution.

A black convert to orthodox Sunni Islam, Ellison spoke to the North American Imams Federation, or NAIF, at the group’s Nov. 19 conference in Minneapolis.

His talk flowed into a breakout session listed on the agenda simply as “American Open University,” according to the conference program. It turns out the university is a “distance-learning” center based in Alexandria, Va., and known to local law enforcement as “Wahhabi Online.”

Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF’s president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF’s more than 150 members, who control mosques across America.

American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as “the antithesis of Islam” and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah’s laws expressed in the Quran.

Ellison’s campaign also was backed by the Washington-based lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations, a partner organization to American Open University-affiliated NAIF. CAIR held fundraisers for Ellison, a civil-rights lawyer and one-time acolyte of Louis Farrakhan who admits to making anti-Semitic remarks in the past (under various alias including Keith Hakim, Keith Ellison-Muhammad and Keith X Ellison).

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Early on in his chilling new book, “Radical Islam in the House,” Michael Coffman quotes former Palestinian terrorist (and Muslim whistleblower) Walid Shoebat on the gullibility of the American people: “The American mediocre mind is no match to 14 centuries of Islamic deception.”

Now, before you get all upset, gentle reader, consider that what Shoebat says is true. What we have today is a stealth agenda by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate our government and wider culture … and it is succeeding in spades.

Coffman’s book is perhaps the best I’ve read at conveying the reality of this agenda to impose Shariah law on Americans. At only about 100 pages, it’s crammed with material that will be new to most.

Interestingly, all through the book, the author asks a rhetorical question that goes basically like this: “Why is the Obama administration helping the Muslim Brotherhood?”

The only way we’ll wake up from our self-imposed slumber and meet this lethal threat is if we start asking questions like this. For many, the answer is obvious, and Coffman makes a stone-cold case for that answer.

Consider that the Brotherhood’s 1991 report, “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals of the Group,” which outlines very clearly what they want to do. The fact that the jihadist group has infiltrated the highest levels of the White House indicates they are succeeding. Yet the White House ignores the peril.

Coffman explains the basic differences between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, and articulates succinctly that rivalries among jihadists are only that; they might differ on tactics and strategies, but the end goal remains the same: conquer the world by establishing a global caliphate.

The great value of “Radical Islam in the House” is that Coffman clearly shows the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of stealth takeover is perhaps more clever than al-Qaida’s more confrontational methods. But they are two sides of the same coin.

Muhammad Morsi, the recently deposed MB head of Egypt, is nowhere near the moderate his Western dupes make him out to be. And so we can ask the question: “Why is Obama working day and night to prop him up, even as Egypt burns in revolution?”

In a May, 2012 election speech, Morsi stated: “The Qur’an is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”

Well. The death-cult Morsi helps lead (the Brotherhood was formed in Egypt in 1928 by Islamists who wanted to return to what they said was the “pure” religion of the Prophet) is momentarily on the ropes in Egyptian political circles, but oddly, has found sanctuary at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Mohamed Magid is imam of the ADAMS Center, a mosque in Virginia (according to Coffman, “one of the most dangerous in America”). Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saw fit to appoint Magid to DHS’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, which was set up to advise the Obama administration on what it can and cannot say regarding Islam!

This boot-licking posture plays right into the hands of the Islamists’ dhimmi status for “non-believers.”

Further, there are former government officials who are helping mainstream radical Islam. Former Vice President Al Gore’s “Current TV” has been sold to al-Jazeera, the Middle-East based “news bureau” that openly applauds radical Islam. As Coffman points out in “Radical Islam in the House,” Current’s co-founder Joel Hyatt has stated – incredibly – that “al-Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current”!

One of the outstanding features of Coffman’s book is the fact that it will play well with conservative Christian audiences. In other words, if Islamists are pushing their worldview through religion, it is at least as valid for Christians to do the same.

As Coffman clearly points out: “The Bible’s account of history is verifiable and contains hundreds of prophecies that have been literally fulfilled. The Qur’an has none.”

This type of bold statement is indicative of a true patriot who serves as a beacon for his countrymen still largely in the dark about our enemies’ true intentions.

Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality.

Consider some facts for a moment:

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the "Islamic world" -- including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China -- much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom's other great basilica, Constantinople's Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the "terror of the Turk." These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

In short, for roughly one millennium -- punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing -- Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic "victims" of "intolerant" Western Christians. That's exactly what a TV personality recently told me live on Fox News.

So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11 -- merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West -- Americans elected a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, who openly empowers the same ideology that their ancestors lived in mortal fear of, even as they sit by and watch to their future detriment.

Surely the United States' European forebears -- who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam -- must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it? Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be "touched up" a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position -- if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did. The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West's ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of "immigration," refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called "enclaves" or "ghettoes" but in Islamic terminology are the ribat -- frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.

All this leads to another, perhaps even more important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside its head, what other historical "orthodoxies" being peddled around as truth are also false?

Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the "suffocating" forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages -- which "coincidentally" occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe -- a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?

Don't expect to get true answers to these and other questions from the makers, guardians, and disseminators of the West's fabricated epistemology.

In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the "information age," was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities -- till they were finally popped.

Last Friday, President Barack Obama worked to mend fences with Iran — the greatest criminal nation on the planet. In his 15-minute phone conversation with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, Obama lost track of the fact that Iran is a proponent of Islamic law and is a prime sponsor of terrorism around the world.

Obama can’t see Iran’s true color: red, stained with the crimson blood of Jews and Christians who won’t accept the Prophet Muhammad and Islamic domination in the Mideast and beyond.

It is the sad truth that Obama buckled under Iranian pressure only weeks after an Iranian official promised to slaughter Americans. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Forces, told Iran’s Assembly of Experts, a group that chooses the Supreme Leader, that Iran will provide brutal support to save the Syrian regime.

According to TheDaily Caller, a former high official even made threats against our President:

[I]n an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank (sic), and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],” he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”

It reads like something from medieval times; yet it doesn’t seem to bother the President, as he continually displays his Islamic loyalties. Such is the leadership under Obama, who treats terrorists like Republicans and Republicans like terrorists.

The Real Iran

Rouhani succeeded former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said Jews are “the most detested people in all humanity.” He also called the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II “a myth,” claiming that Jews have played up Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust.

Iran produces only extremist leaders. During his State of the Union address in 2002, President George W. Bush said Iran and its “terrorist allies” are part of “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” For more than three decades, Iran has been the primary sponsor of Hezbollah, which when translated into English is the “Party of Allah.” Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s paramilitary wing is considered one of the largest rebel armies for uniting Islam. And it has a large following that wants to harm America.

A just-released Pew Research Survey shows that 62 percent of Palestinians say suicide bombing is justified. Reported Pew: “[I]n some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims say attacks on civilians are at least sometimes justified to defend Islam from its enemies; in the Palestinian territories, a majority of Muslims hold this view.”

Iran throws a lot of weight in the Muslim world and has done more to advocate Islamic extremism than any other power in the world, both in terms of money and ideology. But exactly what do Iran and its brand of Islam stand for?

To get a bearing on just how crazy Revolutionary Iran is, consider the words of its revolutionary and spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini as reportedly found in Tahrir al-Vasileh:

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising [sic] the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

The teachings of the Ayatollah are as powerful today as they were when he spearheaded the revolution in 1979. His sick and hateful ideology influences millions of people.

But nobody protests louder than Western Muslims and their liberal apologists, who always want to paint Islam as a reasonable, peaceful people. The propaganda was spewing about last week at the U.N. General Assembly meeting. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared that, “Islam is a religion of peace, compassion and brotherhood.” I expect that when Sharif got back to Pakistan, he was subjected to a lashing; because he doesn’t seem schooled in the most important subject taught to any Muslim: the Quran:

“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God’s own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers.” Quran 2:89-2:90

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.” Quran 2:190-2:191

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29

Those are hardly the words of the New Testament. Of course, liberals can argue these words are taken out of context (not sure what context it would be OK to proclaim such things, but so be it). But before anyone gets too defensive about Islam, take a look at what “good” Muslims have done recently, specifically in Saudi Arabia.

The House of Saud has a 70-year relationship with the United States and has been a major provider of petroleum to the free world. Without a doubt, Saudi oil helped build modern Western societies; and the Kingdom has been a stabilizing force in the Mideast. Yet Saudi Arabians do not have the liberties we take for granted, and they live in a society we would never tolerate. One incident that illustrates my point was a fire at a girls’ school in Mecca on March 11, 2002.

As the smoke billowed and flames spread, students and teachers began to run for the exits. There was just one problem; the school was patrolled on the outside by the Saudi religious police who were responsible for “educating” females in the Kingdom. The zealots had a serious problem: The girls and women fleeing didn’t have the good sense to cover themselves from head to toe before rushing out.

According to eyewitnesses some of the “holy ones” beat the girls to force them back into the school so they could retrieve their full gowns, some of which were probably already on fire. Then they blocked the doors. Then firefighters arrived and began to help some of the students and teachers escape. So what did the religious police do? They started beating up the firefighters. The same treatment was given to parents who arrived to help free their children from the flames. The teachers did the best they could; but when it was all over, there were 15 dead and 50 others badly injured.

This happened just 11 years ago in a moderate Muslim country — at least moderate when compared to Iran. None of that seems to concern Obama, who appears to be all ears when it comes to opening diplomatic relations with Tehran. The question we should all be asking ourselves is: Why?

Perhaps King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia knows the answer. Abdullah was one of the first to congratulate Obama on his election victory in the autumn of 2008. A couple days later, the king was in New York for a U.N. session. On Nov. 7 and within minutes of Abdullah’s arrival at Kennedy airport, the President-elect phoned him.

Robert Lacey writes of that conversation in his book Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia:

The call went on for around seven minutes, and it finished with Abdullah expressing the wish that the two leaders might meet and talk face-to-face before too long — “Inshallah” (“If it be God’s will”).

“Inshallah,” echoed Obama, making use of the pious Islamic expression with which he was obviously familiar.

Later the king recounted some details of the conversation to a group of Saudis who had assembled to welcome him to Manhattan.